RE: #1511: Proposed resolution of Incoming 5.10: Back-license to document authors in resulting RFCs

[Black_David at emc.com]

John,

While your internal counsel is almost certainly correct as far as
his/her statement goes, there appear to be two cases that are
not covered:
(A) Whether each author need to receive "full" rights to the published
	RFC, as opposed to the "joint" rights.  This is primarily a
	question to John Klensin about what's needed for the academic
	institutions that he's expressed concern about - I've
interpreted
	what he's written as requiring "full" rights to be returned to
	each author to get the multi-institution case right (as opposed
	to "joint" rights that each author can reserve), and would be
	quite happy to be wrong about this.
(B) The "derived works" case in which one or more authors revise
	an RFC that they did not originally write.  In this situation,
	publication of the revised RFC relies on the IETF's copyright
	in the original RFC, and absent some license to IETF's rights
	in the original RFC, the author or authors have rights *only*
	to their revisions, and not the resulting RFC.

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
black_david at emc.com        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Calhoon (LCA) [mailto:John.Calhoon at microsoft.com] 
> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 1:43 PM
> To: Brian E Carpenter
> Cc: IPR WG
> Subject: RE: #1511: Proposed resolution of Incoming 5.10: 
> Back-license to document authors in resulting RFCs
> 
> Thanks Brian,
> 
> Usual IANAL disclaimer
> 
> My internal counsel believes the statement I offered covers 
> the contributors rights in the collective work in alignment 
> with current (U.S.) copyright practice.
> 
> John Calhoon
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 10:33 AM
> To: John Calhoon (LCA)
> Cc: IPR WG
> Subject: Re: #1511: Proposed resolution of Incoming 5.10: 
> Back-license to document authors in resulting RFCs
> 
> John,
> 
> That part is well understood. The point here is not the original
> contributions, but the collective work that the IETF creates
> based on the original contributions.
> 
>      Brian
> 
> On 2007-11-13 06:47, John Calhoon (LCA) wrote:
> > IANAL, but after confering with internal counsel I'd like 
> to offer the following simplification:
> >
> > "While contributors provide certain copyright license 
> rights to the IETF, contributors retain all ownership and use 
> rights in their contributions.  The IETF Trust is instructed 
> to grant no copyright licenses to users of IETF documents 
> that infringe the copyrights of contributors in any way."
> >
> > My internal counsel believes suggesting that contributors 
> need a license from anyone to use their works, whether in 
> original or derivative form, would actually call the 
> contributor's rights into question rather than clarifying them
> >
> > John Calhoon
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:harald at alvestrand.no]
> > Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 12:58 AM
> > To: Brian E Carpenter
> > Cc: ipr-wg at ietf.org
> > Subject: #1511: Proposed resolution of Incoming 5.10: 
> Back-license to document authors in resulting RFCs
> >
> > After looking over the discussion, I propose that section 5.10 be
> > replaced with an abbreviated version of Brian's proposal:
> >
> >> 5.10. Contributors retention of rights
> >>
> >> Although contributors provide specific rights to the IETF, it
> >> is not intended that this should deprive them of any rights
> >> in their contributions. To underwrite this principle, the
> >> IETF Trust is requested to issue a form of license to contributors
> >> which ensures that they may each make use of their contributed
> >> material as published in an RFC in any way they wish, subject only
> >> to the restriction that no contributor has the right to represent
> >> any document as an RFC, or equivalent to an RFC, if it is not a
> >> full and complete copy or translation of the published RFC.
> >
> > Scott, can you prepare a version -03 of draft-ietf-ipr-3978-incoming
> > with this language in it, and publish it?
> >
> > Once that's published, I'll send out a WG Last Call on this 
> document;
> > the WG Last Call will also admit the possibility of raising 
> issues with
> > draft-ietf-ipr-outbound-rights-04, if the participants' review of
> > -incoming and -outbound together reveal issues that are 
> best addressed
> > in -outbound.
> >
> > Once the Last Call is over and issues resolved, we can send these
> > documents to the IESG.
> >
> >                   Harald
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ipr-wg mailing list
> > Ipr-wg at ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ipr-wg mailing list
> > Ipr-wg at ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
> 

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg